In 1895, while R. Avenarius was still alive, an article by his student F. Blei appeared in the philosophical journal he edited: "Metaphysics in Political Economy"[192]. All the founders of empirio-criticism wage war against "metaphysics" not only of open, conscious philosophical materialism, but also of natural science, which stands spontaneously from the standpoint of the materialist theory of knowledge. The student undertakes war against metaphysics in political economy. This war is directed against the most diverse schools in political economy, but we are interested exclusively in the character of empirio-critical argumentation against the school of Marx and Engels.

"The aim of the present investigation," writes F. Blei, "is to show that all contemporary political economy operates with metaphysical premises in explaining the phenomena of economic life: it 'deduces' 'laws' of the economy from its 'nature,' and man appears only as something accidental in relation to these 'laws'... All its contemporary theories, political economy stands on metaphysical ground, all its theories are non-biological and therefore unscientific and have no value whatsoever for knowledge... Theorists do not know what they are building their theories upon, from what soil these theories spring. They imagine themselves to be realists, operating without any premises, since they occupy themselves with such 'simple' (nüchterne), 'practical,' 'obvious' (sinnfällige) economic phenomena... And all of them share with many trends in physiology that kinship which gives children – in our case: physiologists and economists – only origin from the same father and mother, namely: from metaphysics and speculation. One school of economists analyzes the 'phenomena' of the 'economy' (Avenarius and his school put ordinary words in quotation marks, wishing to show that they, true philosophers, understand all the 'metaphysicalness' of such vulgar, not purified by 'gnoseo­logical analysis' usage), not connecting what it finds (das Gefundene) on this path with the behavior of individuals: physiologists exclude the behavior of the individual as 'effects of the soul' (Wirkungen der Seele) from their investigations – economists of this tendency declare the behavior of individuals to have no significance (eine Negligible) in relation to the 'immanent laws of the economy' (378–379). With Marx, the theory constructed 'economic laws' from constructed processes, and these 'laws' stood in the initial section (Initialabschnitt) of the dependent life series, while economic processes stood in the final section (Finalabschnitt)... 'The economy' became with economists a transcendent category, in which they discovered such 'laws' as they wished to discover: 'laws' of 'capital' and 'labor,' 'rent,' 'wages,' 'profit.' Man became with economists a Platonic concept of 'capitalist,' 'worker,' and so on. Socialism attributed to the 'capitalist' the property of being 'greedy for profit,' liberalism – to the worker the property of being 'demanding' – and both laws were thereby explained from the 'law-governed action of capital' (381–382).

"Marx approached the study of French socialism and political economy already with a socialist worldview, and his cognitive goal was to give 'theoretical grounding' to this worldview for the sake of 'securing' its initial value. Marx found Ricardo's law of value, but... the conclusions of French socialists from Ricardo could not satisfy Marx for 'securing' his is-value, brought into a state of life-differentiation, i.e., 'worldview,' for these conclusions already formed an integral part of the content of his initial value, in the form of 'indignation at the robbing of workers,' and so on. The conclusions were rejected as 'formally incorrect economically,' for they are merely a 'applying of morality to political economy.' 'But what is formally incorrect in the economic sense may be correct in the world-historical sense. If the moral consciousness of the masses declares a certain economic fact to be unjust, this is proof that this fact has outlived itself, that other economic facts have appeared, by virtue of which that fact has become unbearable and unsustainable. Behind formal economic falsehood may therefore be concealed true economic content' (Engels in the preface to 'The Holy Family').

"In this quotation," continues F. Blei, citing Engels, "the middle section (Medialabschnitt) of the dependent series interesting to us here has been sublated (abgehoben – a technical term in Avenarius, in the sense of: reached consciousness, distinguished itself). After the 'cognition' of the fact that behind 'moral consciousness of falsehood' there must be concealed an 'economic fact,' the final section supervenes... (Finalabschnitt: Marx's theory is a statement, i.e., an is-value, i.e., a life-differentiation passing through three stages, three sections: beginning, middle, end, Initialabschnitt, Medialabschnitt, Finalabschnitt)... i.e., the 'cognition' of this 'economic fact.' In other words: now the task consists in 'finding again' the initial value, i.e., the 'worldview,' in the 'economic facts' for the sake of 'securing' this initial value. – This determined variation of the dependent series contains within itself already Marxian metaphysics, – regardless of how the 'cognized' manifests itself in the final section (Finalabschnitt). 'Socialist worldview,' as an independent is-value, 'absolute truth,' is grounded 'retroactively' by means of a 'special' theory of knowledge – namely: by means of Marx's economic system and the materialist theory of history... By means of the concept of surplus value the 'subjectively' 'true' in Marx's worldview finds its 'objective truth' in the theory of knowledge of 'economic categories' – the securing of the initial value is completed, metaphysics has received retroactively a critique of knowledge" (384–386).

The reader probably bristles at us for citing for so long this incredibly vulgar drivel, this quasi-scientific buffoonery dressed in the costume of Avenarius's terminology. But – wer den Feind will verstehen, muß im Feindes Lande gehen: whoever wishes to know the enemy must travel in the enemy's land{88}. And R. Avenarius's philosophical journal is truly an enemy's land for Marxists. And we invite the reader to overcome for a moment the legitimate disgust at the clowns of bourgeois science and analyze the argumentation of Avenarius's student and colleague.

The first argument: Marx is a "metaphysician," who did not grasp the gnoseo­logical "critique of concepts," who did not work out a general theory of knowledge and brazenly thrust materialism directly into his "special theory of knowledge."

There is nothing in this argument belonging personally to Blei and only to Blei. We have already seen dozens and hundreds of times how all the founders of empirio-criticism and all Russian Machists accuse materialism of "metaphysics," that is, rather, repeat the threadbare arguments of Kantians, Humeans, and idealists against materialist "metaphysics."

The second argument: Marxism is just as metaphysical as natural science (physiology). – And in this argument "guilty" is not Blei, but Mach and Avenarius, for they proclaimed war against "natural-historical metaphysics," calling by this name that spontaneously materialist theory of knowledge which – as Mach and Avenarius themselves acknowledge, and according to the judgment of all people with any knowledge of the question – is held by the vast majority of natural scientists.

The third argument: the declaration by Marxism of "personality" as a magnitude without significance, quantité négligeable, the recognition of man as "accident," the subordination of man to some kind of "immanent economic laws," the absence of analysis of des Gefundenen – what we find, what is given to us, and so forth. – This argument entirely repeats the circle of ideas of empirio-critical "principial coordination," i.e., the idealist distortion in Avenarius's theory. Blei is entirely right that one cannot find in Marx and Engels the slightest hint of admission of such idealist nonsense and that from the standpoint of this nonsense one is inevitably led to reject Marxism wholesale, from the very beginning, from its most basic philosophical premises.

The fourth argument: Marx's theory is "non-biological," it knows nothing of any "life-differentiations" and similar play with biological terms constituting the "science" of the reactionary professor Avenarius. – Blei's argument is correct from the standpoint of Machism, for the chasm between Marx's theory and Avenarius's "biological" trifles indeed strikes the eye immediately. We shall soon see how Russian Machists, wishing to be Marxists, actually followed in Blei's footsteps.

The fifth argument: partisanship, bias of Marx's theory, the preconceived nature of his solution. Empirio-criticism as a whole, and not only Blei, lays claim to impartiality both in philosophy and in social science. Neither socialism nor liberalism. Not a demarcation of fundamental and irreconcilable trends in philosophy – materialism and idealism – but the striving to rise above them. We have traced this tendency of Machism on a long series of questions of gnoseo­logy and we have no right to be surprised when we encounter it in sociology.

The sixth "argument": ridicule of "objective" truth. Blei sensed at once, and sensed quite justly, that historical materialism and all of Marx's economic teaching are thoroughly permeated with recognition of objective truth. And Blei correctly expressed the tendencies of Mach's and Avenarius's doctrine when he "from the threshold," as they say, rejected Marxism precisely for the idea of objective truth – when he immediately declared that nothing beyond Marx's "subjective" views in fact lies hidden behind the teaching of Marxism.

And if our Machists disown Blei (and they will certainly disown him), we shall say to them: why blame the mirror if your face is crooked, and so forth. Blei is a mirror, truly reflecting the tendencies of empirio-criticism, and the disavowal of our Machists testifies only to their good intentions – and to their absurd eclectic striving to reconcile Marx with Avenarius.

Let us pass from Blei to Petzoldt. If the first is a mere student, then such outstanding empirio-criticists as Lesevich declare the second to be a teacher. If Blei posed the question of Marxism directly, then Petzoldt – not deigning to take account of some Marx or Engels or other – expounds in positive form the views of empirio-criticism in sociology, affording the opportunity to compare them with Marxism.

The second volume of Petzoldt's "Introduction to the Philosophy of Pure Experience" is entitled: "On the Way to Permanence" ("Auf dem Wege zum Dauernden"). The author places the tendency toward permanence at the foundation of his investigation. "The final (endgültig), permanent state of humanity can be revealed in its main features from the formal side. Thus we acquire the foundations for ethics, aesthetics, and formal theory of knowledge" (p. III). "Human development carries its goal within itself," it proceeds toward "the perfect (vollkommenen), permanent state" (60). The signs of this are numerous and diverse. For example, how many such ardent radicals are there who by old age do not "grow wise," do not become calm? True, this "premature permanence" (p. 62) is a property of the philistine. But do not philistines constitute a "compact majority"? (p. 62).

The conclusion of our philosopher, printed in italics: "The most essential feature of all the goals of our thinking and creativity is permanence" (72). Clarification: many people "cannot see" how a picture on the wall hangs crooked or a key on a table lies crooked. And such people are "by no means necessarily pedants" (72). They possess "a feeling that there is some disorder" (72; italics by Petzoldt). In a word, "the tendency toward permanence is the striving toward the most final, by its nature final state" (73). All this is from the fifth chapter of the second volume, entitled: "The Psychic Tendency toward Permanence." The proofs of this tendency are all most weighty. For example: "Following the striving toward the most final, toward the highest in the initial, spatial sense are people who love mountain climbing. They are not driven to this always solely by the striving for the distant view and physical exercise, the striving for pure air and great nature, but also by the striving deeply embedded in every organic being to be persistent in the once-taken direction of activity right up to the achievement of the natural goal" (73). Yet another example: what prices do not people pay to assemble a complete collection of postage stamps! "One's head can spin as one looks at the price list of the postage stamp dealer... And yet nothing can be more natural and understandable than this striving toward permanence" (74).

Philosophically uneducated people do not understand the full scope of the principles of permanence or economy of thought. Petzoldt develops his "theory" in detail for the profane. "Compassion is an expression of the immediate need for a permanent state" – declares the content of § 28... "Compassion is not a repetition, doubling of the observed suffering, but suffering on account of this suffering... The immediacy of compassion must be put forward with the greatest energy. If we recognize it, then we thereby recognize that the good of others can interest man as immediately and primordially as his own good. Thus we thereby reject any utilitarian and eudemonistic grounding of the doctrine of morality. Human nature, precisely by virtue of its striving toward permanence and rest, is at its foundation not evil, but permeated with readiness to render assistance.

The immediacy of compassion often manifests itself in the immediacy of aid. To save another, people often throw themselves without reflection to the aid of the drowning. The sight of a man struggling with death is unbearable and compels those rushing to help to forget their other duties, even to risk their own existence and the existence of their loved ones for the sake of saving the useless life of some degraded drunkard, i.e., compassion can under certain circumstances incite to actions not deserving justification from the moral standpoint"...

And with such inexpressibly vulgar things are occupied dozens and hundreds of pages of empirio-critical philosophy!

Morality is deduced from the concept of "moral permanent state" (the second section of the second volume: "Permanent States of the Soul," chapter 1: "On the Moral Permanent State"). "A permanent state by its concept contains in none of its components any conditions for change. From this it already follows, without further reasoning, that this state leaves no possibility whatsoever for war" (202). "Economic and social equality flows from the concept of the final (endgültig), permanent state" (213). This "permanent state" does not flow from religion, but from "science." Not "the majority" will bring it about, as socialists think, not the power of socialists will "help humanity" (207) – no, "free development" will lead to the ideal. Is it not true that profit on capital is declining, that wages are constantly rising? (223). All these assertions about "wage slavery" are lies (229). Slaves were beaten to pieces with impunity, but now? No, "moral progress" is indubitable: look at university settlements in England, at the Salvation Army (230), at German "ethical societies." In the name of "aesthetic permanent state" (chapter 2 of the second section) "romanticism" is rejected. And to romanticism belong all kinds of excessive expansion of the Self, and idealism, and metaphysics, and occultism, and solipsism, and egoism, and "violent majorizing of the minority by the majority," and "the social-democratic ideal of organizing all labor by the state" (240–241)[193].

The boundless stupidity of the philistine, complacently smearing out the most hackneyed rubbish under cover of a "new," "empirio-critical" systematization and terminology – here is what the sociological excursions of Blei, Petzoldt, Mach amount to. A pretentious costume of verbal distortions, tortured tricks of syllogistic logic, refined scholasticism – in a word, the same thing both in gnoseo­logy and in sociology, the same reactionary content behind the same gaudy sign-board. Let us now look at the Russian Machists.